December 8th, 2009 at 4:02 PM ^

I hope the assertion that U of M can sign 28 players is right. Also, good news re: Hankins. FWIW, OSU apparently offered him a good while before they offered Sharif Floyd.*

*I get this from an OSU friend of mine whole follows their recruiting closely, so take it for what you think it's worth.


December 8th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^

Come to think of it, it's pay article...Anyway, what would be the point, and I ask this as a real question (not a rhetorical one) of signing 28 guys if you could only give 25 of them scholarships? You'd have all 28 in the fold, so to speak, but wouldn't yet be sure that they'd all qualified academically?


December 8th, 2009 at 4:20 PM ^

It is basically a safety net against kids not qualifying academically. You count on some attrition between signing day and enrollment day and if you are still over the limit you have to tell a kid to look elsewhere or greyshirt.

Looking at last year, if we had been ready to sign 28 you still would have had the two DT's de-commit and Witty not qualify so you still are at 25 and using all of the scholarships you have at your disposal.


December 8th, 2009 at 4:34 PM ^

EE's are still allowed by the NCAA, nothing ever changed there. The problem was that if the Big Ten only allowed 25 period, there'd be no need to EE anyone, for class size sake.

Declaring a few EE's in the past would've allowed us to "sign" more than 25 - the 25 were the current class, the EE were the previous class. Again, a hard 25 limit doesn't "need" any EE's.

If the Big Ten is truly allowing us to sign 28, we can now EE 3 kids back to the last class, and therefore still meet this class' 25 limit of schollies.


December 8th, 2009 at 4:52 PM ^

I don't have a Rivals account, but the poster said we can "sign" 28 guys. This is not news. This is the same Big Ten limit that has always been there. If we are allowed to "enroll" 28 (which TomVH directly asked Michigan compliance about and they said "No") then there is cause for much celebration.

If the Big Ten has not instituted a rule preventing us from backdating recruits (counting EE's towards last year's class), then I'm excited, but that is not what the poster said and it contradicts reports from this blog's recruiting guru stating that we will only be able to enroll 25 players in this class.


December 8th, 2009 at 5:11 PM ^

and I didn't neg you FWIW, just trying to clarify for all...

The whole debate has been that the Big Ten added some new rule this year only allowing us to "sign", and potentially enroll 25. This would have been more restrictive to our conference than the SEC proposed limit of 28 LOIs. It would've also kept us from "making up ground" on unused schollies via the EE process.

This news, in essence, does say we can "enroll" 28. 25 this year, and 3 towards previous year as EE's.

We could have 30 "commits", but if we were only allowed to issue 25 LOIs things would have been much more scary (i.e. losing tons of kid's phone #s, telling them to go elsewhere, hoping they don't qualify, or not taking in a potentially higher rated recruit to avoid it, etc). This gives us more wiggle room.


December 8th, 2009 at 5:16 PM ^

I know what the debate has been about with respect to backdating recruits and counting EE's. The OP just made no mention of this and merely said we could sign 28 players, which is not news (the Big Ten allows you to sign 28 players to an LOI and has for a while now).

Like I said, I can't read the article. If it specifically says that EE's can still be counted toward last year's 25 scholarship limit, then I am excited. If it just says that we can sign 28 guys to an LOI (which is all the OP said), then there is nothing to see here at all.

In short, I will take your word for it and begin celebrating.


December 8th, 2009 at 9:28 PM ^

I read the article, sorry I can't post from it (see ensuing beating of OP & "redacted").

However, the part your off on IMO, (and God knows I've been off before when it comes to IMO's) is the 28 LOI's never having changed. The confusion this year has been about THAT very issue. Forget the "no" EE's, The rumor/issue was that the Big Ten HAD INDEED changed the LOI's to 25.

Problems with this are 2-fold. 1) It pretty much removes EE from the equation - no need, EE's were only counted back to get to the 25 number; if already there, no need. 2) If the attrition you pointed out occurs (non-qualify etc), you don't have anyone to fall back on to still get 25. This would've over time put the Big Ten at a disadvantage with likely smaller classes.

Again, I could be wrong, but I haven't read anything that ACTUALLY says the Big Ten outlawed EE back-signing. I HAVE seen a bunch of specualtion that way, which I think is people miscontruing "it" to be the change, when really it was the 25 limit rendering it a non-factor.


December 8th, 2009 at 9:48 PM ^

I have heard of no rumor about the Big Ten further limiting the number of players teams can sign to a LOI. Limiting teams to 28 LOI's is a fairly recent development and the Big Ten has been ahead of the curve with respect to policing the oversigning issue (the SEC passed a similar 28 LOI limitation just this year). Considering the number of offers the staff has outstanding, I can't imagine how a rumor like this would have had any traction (we are clearly attempting to sign more than 25 players to LOI's).

As others have posted here, no one has found any actual rule change with respect to the Big Ten and the backdating of EE recruits, but every recruiting site and the Michigan compliance office seem to be operating under the assumption that they will not be able to backdate recruits as an end-run around the annual 25 scholarship (not LOI) limit.

If people were confused about whether or not we could sign 28 players (with only 25 being able to actually enroll), that is fine, but the fact that we can is not news to me.

Blue in Yarmouth

December 9th, 2009 at 7:56 AM ^

Purplestuff is right, the debate was never around how many LOI's could be accepted (that has been 28 for some time). It has always been about whether an early enrolee can count toward the previous years class.

The NCAA has a max limit of 25 recruits per class that can enrole at a school each Sept. In the past we could sign those 25, plus add any EE's to the previous class assuming the previous class was not the full 25.

Now, there seems to be a rule (in the Big Ten only) that says you can no longer count EE's toward the previous years class. This would mean that we can only have 25 players join the team out of this recruiting class regardless of whether any were EE's.

We can accept up to 28 LOI's, but come Sept. only 25 from this years class can come on board (this is what all the debate has been about).

Again, this is a big 10 rule, not an NCAA rule. Also, no one has ever actually seen or read this rule in any rule book, but that is what all the debate has been about. It has had nothing to do with the number of LOI's we could accept, that has not changed.


December 8th, 2009 at 4:04 PM ^

should not be posted as a diary piece. Hate to rain on the parade.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this taken down as it's a violation of site rules....
But it IS all good info


December 8th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^

Rich Rod is a busy man flying all over the country. Say what you want about the man but I have no doubts that he wants to win more than any of us fans. For some reason I really want to see Rich Rod succeed on a more personal level than just being a biased fan. Don't get me wrong I want them to win because it will make me happy, but for all the crap the guys put up with I think he deserves to win.


December 8th, 2009 at 5:17 PM ^

I supported RichRod from the moment he was getting blasted by the media ( also known as when he was hired =/) but it wasn't until the pep-rally before the OSU game this year that I wanted him to succeed far past my own selfish reasons, I wanted him to succeed cause he is a nice guy, a great coach, and truly cares about U of M.


December 8th, 2009 at 4:19 PM ^

I wonder what's new with Big Tex?

Finding a way to land Beachum, Hanking, and Ash would be a hell of a foundation on the DL.

Furman and Parker would be sweet for our back 7.

What do people think about Grimes and Murphy? Since they're probably a package deal, would you rather have them, or Furman and Parker?


December 8th, 2009 at 5:24 PM ^

On pure athletic ability I would go with Big Tex anyday. In terms of being able to clog the middle and eat two defenders, Hankins. Ash would be a good get but I am concerned about his grades.

Given all of this I would take athletic ability over anything else.


December 8th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^

We NEED Furman more than any other recruit I can think of. It seems we are closing in on a lot of DB's and DT's, but what about the LB corps? Hawthorne is the only young guy I see as promising. After Ezeh, Leach and Mouton leave...who replaces them?

Fitz, who is struggling at the moment...
Hawthorne (He's slotted for Sam?)

Who is going to take control of the Mike and Will?


December 8th, 2009 at 4:36 PM ^

After the highlight video from yesterday I must be updated daily on our progress in acquiring Lucky Radley's services....

As an aside...perhaps this 28 info will stop 4 threads a day about "how will we sign all these guys" etc.

Crime Reporter

December 8th, 2009 at 4:42 PM ^

After all the bad news of late, it is refreshing to hear some good news. I did not see Big Tex mentioned, but I am assuming we're still going after him. Thanks for posting.


December 8th, 2009 at 4:53 PM ^

Probably one of the bost posts I have read in a while based off of positives and total information on recruiting. That is a big relief that we can sign 28 and RR is loving it, I'm sure. That brightened my day. Thank you, sir.